|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.|
|WikiProject Drug Policy|
|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|Text from Intravenous_drug_use_(recreational) was copied or moved into Drug_injection with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Intravenous drug use (recreational).|
The page lists frequently (illicitly) injected drugs. From experience, MDMA (the term ecstacy should be avoided) is rarely injected. The listing of heroin, amphetamine and methamphetamine is good but cocaine should certainly be added. I would list heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, amphetamine and various others less frequently. Benzodiazepines are not injected nearly as frequently as cocaine and heroin and most of these drugs/formulations available in the US are not even water soluble. This should be changed.
- Ketamine is also one of the more common IM/IV recreational drugs. It gives a much bigger psychedelic kick than insufflation. Shamanchill (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- MDMA is rarely injected. But doing so does produce the expected euphoria, almost simultaneous with a particular, sharp pain in the injection site, which will tell any experienced user, "Ow, I shouldn't have done that, Hmmmm, ahhh, oh well . . . pum-chuk-pum-chuk-pum-chuk (sound of rave going on in ears or in head)." Substances that aren't "meant" to be injected are those that have non-soluble additives or impurities, that will likely cause abscess. But in an article that supposes to preserve neutrality, it seems difficult to me, to assert, "shooting drugs is bad and dangerous", which most people will readily acknowledge -- even an experienced user will know that life-threatening dangers are involved -- and then go on to say, "But you Really shouldn't shoot MDMA." Although, here in the talk pages, I'm telling you, "You Really shouldn't shoot MDMA."
Hep C, and HIV in intravenous use
Added the clarification about HIV and hepatitis C being prevalent with intravenous use due to equipment sharing. I don't condone the direct injection of any illicit substance, but, being an encyclopedia, it should contain the facts, and not half-facts.
Harm Reduction Error
In Harm Reduction
It's also quite uncommon for a sterilizing agent to be used.
A friend of my other friends friend has always washed shared needles with isopropyl alcohol or hydrogen peroxide before future uses, or so a friend of my aquantiances friend said the other day. This needs to be taken off there is no citation, it is needed and never come up with. Delete this part I say. Discuss. Dirtysmoke (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it ethical for the article to be written as almost a guide to using drugs: e.g. "While squatting, gently insert the syringe (without the needle) until it is just inside the anus then ease the plunger down. A bit of Vaseline or lubricant will help if there is any pain. The sphincter muscles should be strong enough to hold the mix inside while it is absorbed. It can pay to do a trial run with water first." It sounds like it's from a 'ways to do drugs' guidebook. I think that it is too much unnecessary information but if it was really necessary, it shouldn't be written in an instructional way. I'm not against educated adults doing drugs (it's their own lives) but I do worry about those under 18 reading it and trying it out themselves - causing themselves a great deal harm if done incorrectly. Not to mention the fact that it is not advisable for anyone to be doing drugs in the first place anyway. (Monsumo 16:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC))
Yes. - Xvall
- Wait, what? You think that a minor is going to decide to inject drugs just because he found straightforward instructions on Wikipedia? Were YOU that dumb as a teenager? 'Cause I sure wasn't. If a teenager injects drugs as a result of this article, that only means he did it a few days before he would have decided to anyway.
- Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, but nor is it kid proof or family safe.
- --18.104.22.168 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- While I respect your opinions on underage drug use/drug use in general (whether I agree with them or not, it doesn't matter), the ethical implications of this concept aren't really the problem here. WP is supposed to serve as an objective information source...that means that whether you are of the opinion that providing information on how to perform an injection encourages drug use or not, WP has a responsibility to provide information on the topic and to keep that information safe from your opinion or mine. Personally (being both a 20 something and a healthcare professional), I'm of the opinion that hiding things from people accomplishes 2 things: 1)Piques interest in the topic by making it taboo, and 2)prevents access to information that could greatly reduce the danger someone puts themselves in by making a certain choice. Since I interact with drug users both in a professional setting and a social one (several of my close friends use a variety of substances on a recreational basis, some of which are used intravenously), I see firsthand the damage that lack of or misinformation can do. The fact of the matter is, no one is ever going to stop people from using drugs. Period. I don't want to hear any whining about how we shouldn't have such a defeatist attutide, etc etc. Like Lewis Black (I think it was him) said, "If you took away all the drugs, ALL THE DRUGS, in the world...people would spin around on their front lawns until they fell down and saw God." I believe we as a society, and I know I as professional, have an ethical obligation to provide information that will allow people to be safe in their choices. I don't encourage drug use...I don't have much of a problem with it either, but I do think it can be an irresponsible thing to do, depending on the person. I know people who are accomplished doctors and other professions who used drugs in a responsible manner, just like prescription drugs are used (in reality, there's really no difference, its semantics), and I know people who are totally the opposite. The thing we have to do is provide a way to be responsibly irresponsible =D. My recommendation for the article is that the areas written in a "tutorial" tone be rewritten to a more formal and scientific tone, which describes a situation in a 3rd person manner (eg "After a tourniquet is appropriately tied in place, the injection area is swabbed with alcohol or iodine, and the needle inserted parallel to the vein at shallow angle so as not to penetrate both walls of the blood vessel." etc). I think this fulfills both the encyclopedia's requirement to provide information and its obligation to do so in a completely non-biased way. Or I could just be talking out my ass, who knows, its like 5 am and way too late for this! Peace Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with both sides here. The content has every right to be here, however the tone of the article is a little too instructional. we should rewrite it in the style Ohnoitsthefuzz recommended. rakkar (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
We have an article that describes how to build nuclear bomb. However, if you don't have the resources to find or buy Uranium or Cocaine, it's harmless. NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
This article has very poor grammatical and encyclopedic skills. Regardless of the topic (which could be controversial to some but is definitely an important topic that requires an effective, academic tone) some standard of quality need be applied here. Such a representation of this subject is completely unacceptable. "...an item 1½ may be added" is not proper at all. three periods to start a paragraph is rubbish. Subjects such as 'needle fixation' and the extensive listing of components of 'speedball' are hardly relevant to an encyclopedic article on this topic. For an article considered 'high importance,' my personal opinion is that many sections of this article require complete rewriting. Spaysing (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Merge and Rewrite
There's a banner stating that this article hs been proposed for a merge with the Intravenous Drug Use entry - I think that a rewrite could negate this, in that skin popping and intramuscular injection should be addressed here and aren't yet. It the scope of this article is going to be just IV drug injection, then I agree that it should be merged, but it could operate as a higher-level document. I also think that the instructional tone of this needs to be changed, and am willing to help out on that aspect. Is everyone cool with my broadening of the subject and cleaning up language and citations? I can do sections and propose them here, or just edit the main article. Regards Shamanchill (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- We shouldn't have 2 articles with redundant content though. Maybe we should merge the intravenous drug use article into this one, rather than vice versa (although that one's better written at the moment). But yeah, you have a good point. --Galaxiaad (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
"In many societies there is a social stigma attached to IV drug use, in addition to the more general stigma around illegal drug use and addiction. Many people feel that it is somehow "unclean" to take drugs in such a manner, even though they may be perfectly comfortable taking them by another route. This may be because of its perceived prevalence in inner cities and with lower-income people."
The above passage seems to be written by one of those bores who make the whole legalization of drugs conversations so tiresome. The reason those people might find it "unclean" might be the undoubted increased short term risk. Although there are undoubtedly risks with all drug taking routes, you can't for example get endocarditis or an aneurism from other routes, to pick 2 examples. This cod-sociology may be true but it doesn't take away from the fact that people are right to think that IV drug use is a) dangerous and b) "unclean". So to put it down to some sort of drug taking snobbery is disingenuous at best. Also it's not like pipes, cigarette smoking or indeed strong alcoholic drinks aren't associated with inner cities and with lower-income people. Hope this helps.22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- The merge was done August 11, 2009. However, the Talk pages were not merged. Anyone reading this page could also read Talk:Intravenous_drug_use_(recreational). - Steve3849 talk 07:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I edited the procedure section about cooking (heating), mainly removing details that I believe are untrue. If someone wants to add back details, they should find sources. The section said that amphetamines "should not" be heated, but I have spoken to several meth addicts and they all heat meth if it is hard to dissolve. This is original research so I did not include it, I just removed the statement which I believed to be untrue. In general, IV drug users will heat any drug if it is necessary to dissolve it. Amphetamine and methamphetamine are perfectly stable when heated, as evidenced by the fact that meth can be smoked.
Fluoborate (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)